Republicans Attack Kavanaugh's Victim... oops wrong one

[_subgenius]

Seems a character witness for the judge was not careful what he put in his yearbook.

https://www.alternet.org/kavanaugh-char ... arly-gongs

You mean the quote by the knighted playwright, actor, and composer Sir Noel Coward ?
geez.

[_EAllusion]

Because an attempted rape is just like a toddler naïvely groping a waitress.

It's absolutely fascinating that while Kavanaugh is flat denying the charges and in no way challenging their seriousness, Republican defenses of him are coming with a big, heaping dose of, "And it's not a big deal if he did it!"

I'm sympathetic to not letting an allegation that is difficult to demonstrate bring a person down, but the defenses of Kavanaugh are so horrible it's getting a little hard to focus on that.

As far as the likelihood that he did it, when it first was an anonymous accusation with little detail, I was firmly in the camp of that not being enough to alter the course of his nomination. That seems obvious to me, but the liberal twitterverse had already tried and convicted him on that alone because one's enemies are always guilty, of course.

Then as more information came out, including the allegation being referenced years back, Kavanaugh nonsensically saying he knows was not at a high school party at an unspecified location at an unspecified time, background details being filled in that cohere with the allegation's story, Kavanaugh having an extensive history of being a shameless liar, etc. it definitely raised the plausibility of it. I don't think it's enough to convict the man in a court of law. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only a good standard of evidence when the consequence is taking away a person's life, liberty, or property. When we're talking about a job interview for one of the most important positions in the country, more uncertainty is fine to be comfortable going in another direction. That's true even if you just think it is somewhat likely the man did it. I would've opposed his nomination on other grounds, for example his history of shameless lying for partisan purposes is not a trait I want in a Supreme Court justice, but I now think this alone is sufficient to drop his nomination.

[_EAllusion]

There is a pervasive streak of reasoning going on in liberadom that goes something like, "If a person references an allegation years ago, that's rock solid proof it's legit."

To that, I would point out two important things that are getting lost.

1) People can be bad witnesses years ago and maintain their allegations going forward. A false allegation in the past can remain a false allegation in the present. Why this was damning in cases like Roy Moore's was because of multiple accusers with similar stories telling others independent of one another coupled with their stories being partially corroborated in other ways as well.

2) The alt-right is really into false flag operations and I guarantee you there are people currently trying to plant false sexual assault/harassment allegations against targets by "telling people" right now so the allegation can be brought up in the future. I god-damn-guarantee it. Be careful what you wish for with that "allegations in the past are unimpeachable" logic.

[_Xenophon]

There is a pervasive streak of reasoning going on in liberadom that goes something like, "If a person references an allegation years ago, that's rock solid proof it's legit."

I think there are at least 2 big factors causing this (at least among the more liberal that I have spoken to about this). 1)We have stretched the idea of "believe the victim" to the maximum. Instead of it reflecting a general supporting of victims while investigations are allowed to proceed and not blaming them for the act that more than likely was committed against them we as a country have morphed it into "the accusation alone is enough". There is probably some argument to be made that this is a natural pendulum swing due to a long history of not believing victims but there is danger in letting it swing too far. 2)They are willing to suspend their disbelief on the topic because it is politically expedient. Because Kavanaugh is the kind of Supreme Court pick he is, they will except the charge becuase it produces the result they want. A very dangerous precedent, especially given your #2.

[_EAllusion]

I think you are correct Xenophon that "victims must be believed" equating to "alleged victims must be believed" is reaching its peak. Or hopefully its peak in any case. And that always has the hole in it that someone saying they are being falsely charged is potentially a victim too. The people who deploy that reasoning and use all the potent "how dare you defend rapists?!" force behind it are always doing so inconsistently just to go after disfavored targets.

This is just a new wrinkle in that there is now also a, "The victim told other people about the assault years ago. That proves it!" that isn't exactly the rock solid proof that some people think it ought to be. I genuinely think cases like Bill Cosby's and Roy Moore's are confusing people about what makes those past allegations so damning.

On top of that, in this case, the lie detector test is also getting cited a lot by liberals as vindicating. That's borderline pseudoscientific voodoo which is a fact liberals would be more sympathetic to if the subject was criminal justice reform.

[_EAllusion]

If this is going to be a Kavanaugh super-thread, I want to mention something that Matthew Yglesias just said that has been driving me up the wall:

It’s funny how every conservative writer and every anti-abortion senator and the president who nominated him all take for granted that Kavanaugh will make abortion illegal but straight reporters cover the confirmation like this is a big mystery.

To that, I'd add that the religious right media in general seems to know with a wink and a nod what his confirmation means. They'd be in complete breakdown mode if they didn't feel that way before the allegations and they'd definitely be trying to scuttle his nomination after the allegations for a more of a sure thing now. It's so bloody obvious that Kavanaugh is a vote either to overturn Roe or cripple it to the point that it is de facto overturned.

But maybe anti-abortion folks are wrong, you might say. They're over-confident. The thing is, mainstream media isn't even trying to grapple with why conservatives are behaving this way if it is a mystery and instead is willing to take a few calculated comments by a few people to create a narrative that would give a naïve consumer of the news the impression that the issue is really anybody's guess. If every conservative writer and anti-abortion Senator and the religious right media apparatus is totally wrong about what Kavanaugh represents for their main political goals, that itself is a major story.

This is because straight reporters are so terrified of being accused of liberal bias that they treat even the most obvious deception from conservatives in good faith much of the time. Allowing themselves to be worked like this is a serious conservative bias in reporting. And more importantly, it rewards conservatives for being dishonest. (!)

[_Xenophon]

RE: your abortion point EA. What is sad is that right leaning discussion of this isn't even being subtle about it. It isn't just obscure anti-abortion sources discussing it either. Fox News, via Carlson, have already declared this whole kerfuffle over the allegation to be a proxy battle in the war for abortion. It makes other news sources refusal to talk about the implications of that that much more confounding when the likes of Fox can discuss it so openly.

[_DarkHelmet]

You can't make this up folks.

After professor reports that Kavanaugh assaulted her, pro-Trump idiots go after student reviews for wrong Christine Ford

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dr ... 32ebfb2c91

Jim Hoft earned the titles of the dumbest person on the Internet. Considering the strong competition from other Trump supporters, that's quite an accomplishment.

[Guest]

Generally I do not make a judgement until I see the evidence, but I believe Christine Blasey Ford.

Glad to see that solely based on partisan presupposition you have made such an emotional exception to your "general" principle.

I am not democrat, progressive, or liberal, I simply think for myself. I make an exception because Ford is an experimental psychologist. But yes, I generally do not make judgement, especially if I am not in a position to make one. And honestly I don't care about Kavanaugh.

[_DoubtingThomas]

On top of that, in this case, the lie detector test is also getting cited a lot by liberals as vindicating. That's borderline pseudoscientific voodoo which is a fact liberals would be more sympathetic to if the subject was criminal justice reform.

Right, Hank just made an excellent video about lie detectors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-2YQ4ikV1M